If You Can't Stand the Heat...
Once I was hired to be in a Focus Group. I was to be paid $125.00 to brainstorm in a room with a group of strangers about products being marketed by the suits on the other side of the two-way glass. The rules of the day were that we were to always support each others' ideas and never be negative. If someone said something negative, they had to wear a goofy hat for ten minutes.
The first brainstorm was for new flavors of cigarettes. We all sat cross-legged on the floor and the leader had a big flip-chart. We would brainstorm every idea and greet each idea as if it were the best idea ever. We started and were chugging along when someone said "How about Pine Tree flavored cigarettes?"
I didn't say what I thought which was that would be like smoking a car freshener. I made a face.
Immediately, I was called out for being negative and was handed a green tasseled hat. "What the fuck?" I thought. "I didn't say how stupid the idea was. I just thought about how it would taste and grimaced." Needless top say, try as I might, I wore a hat for most of the day (including, at one point, when I had a preference for a less dicky looking hat and the Pine Tree lady was hurt because she liked a different one me. Seriously.).
Over at the defunct (at least for now) Theatre Ideas, Scott, Bob and I have had a few scraps about theatrical theory and ideology. Just before those, Rebecca Z took me to task because of a mixed review I wrote about her show. Mac declares in the comments section that
I can tell you where my lack of outrage comes from: fear of people like you and Don. I know now that raising an objection to anything means essentially ruining my own life for a week as I deal with increasingly mean-spirited rhetoric. You've both posted offensive material recently, but I've learned my lesson in terms of speaking up about it.
Nick over at Rat's Ass seems to have a need for an artist/critic contract so that we can all be honest but not destructive (I think I interpreted that correctly, but I could have blown it in the recap).
I agree with Tony when he writes
But how does one improve as an artist if we're only accepting of the positive feedback. How do we as artists give feedback when a show isn't working without giving offense? How do we receive feedback without taking offense?
We always talk, and hear talk about furthering the art form, but if we can't be honest about our work alongside our peers (artist and critic) how is anything furthered? Without that, any "power wielded" by critics is really furthered just by our failure to honestly assess our work among our peers.
Rebecca Z, in commenting on Scott's temporary farewell speech, that
The biting and brawling between the people who are supposed to have your back takes a lot of time and energy and doesn't seem to get anybody anywhere other than providing juicy reading and quick adrenaline boosts.
She's right in that it makes for some juicy reading (why else would we read blogs if they weren't at least interesting?) but her strange "brawling with those who are supposed to have your back" comment indicates that she has a strange sense of support and maybe wants me to wear a silly hat.
Scott's farewell address reads a *wee* bit like someone typed it up while suffering from stigmata and just about to ascend to the right hand of the Father. On the other hand, his work with the prisoners is some very cool stuff and I respect the walk the man takes. I like Scott a lot (even considering we've never met in person) but when he waxes on as if he is a misunderstood prophet being crucified for his attempts to make the world a better place, it puts me off some. The Prof is more interesting when he's throwing the money lenders out of the temple than when he tries to lug that cross around.
Some don't care much for the ranting style, the manifesto style, or (in my case) the raging asshole style, but I dig it. I know Scott didn't halt his blogging because he was in a snit with Bob and I - that's how we roll, like a trio of junkyard dogs sparring over a leftover bone. If you read carefully, in spite of the biting tone and nasty language, there's some great, thoughtful ideas floating around.
All of this boils down to two important yet diametrically opposed notions: most theater people just want affirmation and aren't really interested in criticism, constructive or otherwise but we all claim to want honest evaluation from our peers ("So what'd you think? Be straight with me..."). The result is often a call for "more civility" amongst artists and less brawling and how that translates is that if you don't have anything nice to say, it's better to keep it to yourself.But how do I tell you your work sucks nicely? Is there a civil way to say "Man. That was very genuine, heartfelt horseshit"? Some would say (and they do. They certainly do) that I must be some arrogant motherfucker to think that my opinion means anything and my response to that is twofold: you must be some arrogant motherfucker charging people money to see your work and that, by plunking down the charge for admission, I have earned the right to be openly critical of what I received for the exchange. More so, if I am considered a friend and think you're show sucks, is it more friendly to politely keep it to myself or tell you it sucks? If I tell you your show blows and I hated it, am I now less a friend? For myself, I prefer friends who are honest enough with me to tell me the truth. Even if it pisses me off or hurts my feelings. Oh - and btw - there is a difference between "You're ugly" and "Your show stunk up the place." The first is personal; the second is about my work.
I accept that same exchange in return. If I care about your opinion of my work, I want the unvarnished truth. Anything less is sort of condescending and of utterly no use to me as an artist. I may not agree with you, but I'll listen and not take it personally because it is about the work. In the knee-jerk, will I get pissy? Probably - hell, I'm Irish and I'm in theater. I can pretty much guarantee you that I'll be over it after a night's sleep and move forward, hopefully learning something from the notes.Am I full of shit on that last statement? I don't think so. Recently, Nina Metz ravaged Clay Continent in the Tribune. She really hated it and used her 50 to 60-word count to clearly communicate just how much she hated it. We spent a good long time working on that piece. Our hearts and souls were in it. Our cast really was family (my wife and I are, actually family, see?) and we were committed to doing the best job we knew how to do. And none of that matters if the person sitting in the seat in front of us isn't buying it. Did I cry and bitch and moan about it? I have this blog where I can write anything that pops into my head and do. Did I go on some slash campaign on Nina? No. Why not? Because in the end of things, I respect Nina's opinion and while I don't agree with her assessment of the show, it's my job as an artist to fucking listen and learn. Joe, my best friend, had some problems with the show as well. Did I cry about his "betrayal of my friendship" because he published a somewhat less than glowing critique of the show? No. Why? Because I'm an adult with some pretty thick skin and have the understanding that if I listen and learn my work may just improve.
Are all the calls for civility, the cries of unfairness and bullying, the whining about artists betraying other artists and sabotaging each others' work, just another way to make us parade around in stupid hats and feel bad about not lying to our peers? Are we all so innocent that we can't handle a good old-fashioned ideological scrap? Are we all so thin-skinned and self serious that we can't handle a bit of blunt honesty? Are we all so easily offended that an aggressive tone ruins our whole life for a week?Getting out there and putting up theatrical work open to the criticism of the masses takes a lot of balls. Hell, getting up in the morning and facing a world run by mega-corporations that are destroying the economy, civil rights, and the health of the planet takes balls. Those who have them can handle the truth, unvarnished, snarky and whole. As Alison Croggon points out:
Criticism, if it's decent, isn't personal. Mind you, art isn't either: you might put your heart and soul into it (and I hope we all do) but in the end, it's work.
Stumble It!
53 comments:
I agree with you, for the most part. My problem lies with the "You created the most caring, heartfelt bullshit" or whatever line you used. That's not really being constructive.
Constructive criticism is pointing out flaws and maybe offering a possible solution.
For example, I recently saw a production of RENT. In my review, I clearly stated that it pretty much sucked. It had its moments, but most of the time, I was pissed off that I paid that much money for crap. But I didn't stop there.
I talked about the lighting -- and why it was crap. I talked about the choreography -- and why it was crap. I talked about the actors -- and why their performance was crap.
It's one thing to say "This Pine Tree cigarette sucks donkey balls" and quite another to say "This Pine Tree cigarette sucks donkey balls because I feel like I'm smoking a picnic table and I think I'm gonna puke"
The first is just antagonistic and worthy of you wearing a stupid hat. The second expresses the same feeling, but offers justification which a) validates your opinion as at least fact-based opinion and b) lets them know exactly why you felt their product sucked donkey balls.
So, yes, you're right. Honesty is desperately needed in the arts. I'd much rather that my best friend said "I thought your performance sucked, because..." than THINK that in his head but then say to me "Great job!" and leave me none the wiser.
I'd much rather people tell me they didn't like the show, "and here's why..." than just say "It fucking sucked" and walk out.
Any time I call for civility, that's what I'm asking for -- not just criticism but constructive criticism. Meaningful feedback that can be acted upon.
I feel like your review of GZ's The Skriker was a good one -- you pointed out the flaws, essentially saying "I felt like this was crap and could've been a lot better, and here's why..." As a director, I would have walked away with a lot of useful information from that. Like your reaction to your best friend and to Nina, I might not agree, but I'd at least listen and learn. The next night, I might watch it with the newfound information and notice what that person was talking about -- or decide that their complaint wasn't relevant (i.e. it only happened that one night, or perhaps you had intended something to work this way -- in which case, you need to figure out why they didn't get it, etc etc).
I enjoy your rants. I just enjoy them more when they add to the conversation, rather than just raise adrenaline levels.
Good post.
Don -- of course I didn't close down my blog because I was engaged in some arguments with you and dv. Sheesh -- I am not prone to snits. I'm reminded of my two collies, who will "fight" together for fun: sometimes it sounds like they're really fighting, but it is "practice" -- that's how they learn, and play. Sometimes, they even pretend to be humping each other, which I assume is doggie language for "fuck you."
I closed down my blog because I was repeating myself, plain and simple. My readers were asking for details that I hadn't yet developed because I was busy arguing with my readers about details I hadn't yet developed! I needed the time to think through the details.
Yes, throwing the moneylenders out of the temple is fun, and releases a lot of energy. Personally, I liked the TCG posts. But when it comes down to it, at some point I have to stop knocking down other people's blocks and start building something with my own. I had reached a point where I needed to take the next step, and I needed focus to do that.
I do think it would have been a good thing for you to accept the invitation to the GZ BBQ, just to walk the walk about being able to exchange ideas without rancor. On the other hand, after a long week of work I'm not real motivated to share my time off with anybody. But I'm an introvert.
I also got tired of people commenting on my "personal style," as I'm sure you do as well. Sometimes, it seemed as if merely stating an opinion was enough to get accused of being an overbearing professor. Sure, there are times when the opinion was stated in terms that come off stronger than I intended -- language is hard that way. The point is to offer the criticism with honesty and and goodwill.
Anyway, I suppose there will be some posts about civility and etiquette in the future, as there always is. Listen and learn, and move on. Blogging is an art, too.
Don,
Another thought provoking blog.
I have always felt that if one cannot accept criticism, they are not worthy of praise.
And it seems to me those in the theater community are a mighty sensitive bunch (I had performed in and around the Chicago improv world for 5 years). I was once asked by “a friend” what I thought if his show (a three person scripted show), and I told him my opinion: that I could see he put a lot of work into the show, but that it did not seem truthful, the dialogue was forced, and the acting was awful (lack of commitment, they did not take the time to really understand the characters wants and needs, hurried through every scene, etc). I felt it was constructive, but needless to say, we are no longer friends and I have not been “invited” back to his shows (Not that I would go). You asked. I told.
In my daily job, I receive criticism all day long. Do I sit and cry about it? No, I listen and learn from it. If people stop trying to make you better, they have indeed given up on you. Take the criticism, listen to it, decide if it makes sense, and either accept it and move on or discard I and move it.
Sure its hard to accept that what you think is your best stuff might just suck, but that’s life.
Life: its just so daily.
Pops
Don, I feel like the flaw in this post is that you're making no differentiation between tone and content. You're trying to make some kind of argument that civility equals dishonesty. I simply don't believe that to be the case, and I don't see where you've demonstrated it.
Do I dislike your style? Yeah, I do. That's the truth. It reads to me like a guy strenuously trying to strike a more-authentic-than-thou pose while getting off on the sheer thrill of deploying aggressive language. I have no idea what you're like in person, but this is how your blogging persona comes across to me. But obviously you're not going to change, and don't see any reason why you should, so I suspect that we just aren't going to interact very often.
I obviously can't force anyone to be civil on the internet. I can call for it, knowing I'll be soundly ridiculed by the bruisers, and that's about the extent of it. So all you guys don't really need to put this much effort into responding to me. You can just ignore me and keep behaving as you see fit.
Here's an example of me praising a review that had some critical things to say about a show of mine:
http://slowlearner.typepad.com/weblog/2007/08/cheerz-n-jeerz.html
Here's an example of a civilly written but highly critical review:
http://jamespeak.blogspot.com/2007/03/dying-city.html
Mac-
It reads to me like a guy strenuously trying to strike a more-authentic-than-thou pose while getting off on the sheer thrill of deploying aggressive language.
Fair enough but I think you give me too much credit for "crafting my persona." I'm not really trying to more (or less) authentic than anyone else and those who know me know that the scatological language is just how I communicate most of the time.
As for your examples of civil criticism, I can point out plenty of my own pieces that are no more or less critical and the only substantive difference is that I like to use words like "fuck," "douchebag," and "asshat."
I agree that tone and content are not the same thing and that my tone sometimes obfuscates my content.
Great post, man.
Even though people might not agree with the methods or the messages that we each put forth, there is dialogue. Maybe it's heated at times. Maybe feathers get ruffled. But that's how change happens. People are thinking about these issues more and more. And that's got to be good no matter how you slice it.
Don -- Just some advice, worth what you paid for it: be careful about admitting that anything is wrong with your tone. Once they get a foot in the door, they will do their best to defang you because your ideas represent a repudiation of the status quo. They will turn your comments box into a referendum on your personality. Don't let it happen -- keep the focus firmly on the issues and the work, not on you.
Again, the tough thing for me now is this whole..."But guys, there are people silently watching from the wings" thing...
The idea being that somehow people are passing judgements...who are these people? The editors of mass media?
It is unclear to me whether or not people are suggesting that there are consequences dire consequences waiting in the wings for all of us who dont practice a certain sort of "civility"...
I'd like for someone to sort of help me out with that one, without being so...mysterious or lacking in lucidity about the ramifications...are they worried about how theater bloggers in gerneal come off...are they worried that somehow we are lowering the "property value" so to speak by living next door to them on the internet? Or are they trying to warn me that too many people think we're a bunch of jerks arent going to come out to the shows?
It feels like somebody is trying to warn me...lately that is
-dv
A genuine question: If you can take criticism and are willing to learn from it and repond rationally and civally to it, why did you delete my initial post about accountability (Wither the much balllyhoed and promised Off Loop Charter?) yesterday?
PS - If you can answer this without going into insult/attack mode, wow, how refreshing that would be.
I think an important factor to consider when giving and receiving constructive criticism, is an element of detachment on both sides. Between friends, the choice of language is key. A good friend of mine came to see me in a show last fall, and when I asked her what she honestly thought, she went on a highly dramatic and animated 15 minute rant, rolling her eyes, saying how bored and forced the show was. It was pure criticism and emotion, with nothing constructive to say. The language she chose was very personal: "you were SO boring", "that drove me crazy". I was hurt, but I heard her out. It is after all, her opinion, and although she is entitled to it, it doesn't necessarily have to change mine. It was more the emotional way she expressed it. I'm just glad she didn't blog about it, to make sure all of our friends and acquaintances new just how bad she believed my performance and the show to be.
It is much for helpful to intellectualize the criticism. I think, Don, people are more likely to get offended with words like "fuckhead" and "asshat" (although I do love that one) because those words are emotionally charged and aggressive. It's easy to hear the frustration and anger in them, and then react to that...all of which shifts the focus from the work, to the individual. And talent/work IS personal because we spend our time, energy, and lives invested in it. I find it easier to brush off someone saying "You're ugly" than someone saying "That piece you poured your soul into made me yawn".
Have you, or has anyone you know, ever been criticized on a blog by a cast mate during the run of a show? Would you ever feel the right to do that if you truly felt the person was not performing well? And if someone did that to you, how do you think you might react to it? xoxoL
Hey Don,
For a good twenty years or so I worked in marketing and new product development for a number of Fortune 500 consumer products companies and was involved in many, many brainstorming sessions (or as industry insiders call them "ideation" sessions) and focus groups, and am quite familiar with the edict of not passing negative judgement on other people's ideas. It was and is commonly thought that this would inhibit free thinking and creativity.
However, after years of hearing and playing by this rule, I eventually participated in a session moderated by some new vendor who had a different take on this. Their point was that the rule wasn't a good one because people were still having negative reactions, but weren't expressing them -- which in turn was surpressing their full participation in the process, to the detriment of the group -- and that there was value to bringing critical insights into the discussion in order to help build more robust ideas that had a better chance of succeeding in the real world.
Rather, we were instructed to be honest in our reactions to ideas, but when we had an issue with one, to take responsibility for improving upon it by posing a "how to?" question to the group (As in, "How to have the refreshing sensation of breathing the air of a pine forest without experiencing the heavy chemical flavor of car deodorizers?")
Expressing one's objection in this manner would give the group a point of focus for improving on the original idea, rather than shooting it down or closing off the point of view of participants who don't agree with it. (ie, "How about a cigarette with natural botanicals rather than chemical flavor enhancers?")
While I no longer clearly recall what moderator or project that was, I do remember that I was so impressed by the quality of the output from that session that I subsequently incorporated that rule into all the brainstorming sessions I conducted in the years that followed.
So constructive critism can and should be a valid part of the creative process.
Hi Scott! That's an interesting comment. What is the status quo to which you refer? In what way am I a representative or beneficiary of it? Which of Don's ideas threaten it?
Mac -- I was talking to Don.
I pose the questions nonetheless. Certainly it's your right and privilege not to answer them.
HelenT-
I delete you because you've decided to jump down my throat anonymously and I have NO RESPECT for the anonymous stone thrower. Genuinely. If you got a beef, put your name on it. If you're to fearful of repercussion, then you're too timid for a legit response.
That said, I've been behind the scenes, working aggressively on putting together a Gathering set in August to create the OLTFC and have been working to get in the door at City Hall. I just haven't posted about it because it ain't fully cooked up yet.
And, for the record, I only go into insult/attack mode when someone thinks they have the stones to come at me insulting or attacking-ly(?). I got tonally aggressive with Scott because he decided to call me "classist, regionalist, and racist" which, in my opinion, means "Let's get at at."
You want me to take you seriously? Ask the question about the OLTFC without the closet insinuation that I'm not walking my talk and with your actual name on the post and you get a much more reasoned response.
Hey Don. Why didn't you just label this entry "Startin' Some Shit"?
Mac,
I'll attempt to intrepret (forgive me Scott)
I think that there is such a disagreement between us all regarding what sort of tone is passable.
If you add into the mix, a difference of opinion regarding the actually content being discussed regardless of tone (although the content lately has been the tone)...
well then things get complicated. If Don starts for lack of a better term "admitting" that his tone is off...he can expect people to then move to the next step which is your content is way off too.
If we can "agree" that Don's tone is unacceptable then we can also start to question whether or not his "I believe" posts are acceptable.
Is this actually happening? I dont know. Are we as a group of bloggers capable of doing it. Again I don't know. But, that is how I'm reading Scott's advice to Don. I a think there is potential validity to it (again depending on you is debating who in any given comment field)
-dv
LMAO @ Dennis -- actually, maybe that could be a tag we all could use in the blog world. Why didn't I think of that while I was blogging?
Mac -- Nah. not worth it. I spent months describing the status quo on my blog, and people still don't get it.
No, there are no bad consequences or retribution for not being able to practice civility, only the risk of making yourself irrelevant over time as people start taking your words with larger and larger bags of salt. I only know my friends and colleagues who read all these blogs, which is probably somewhere on the order of 80 - 100 people. Most of chicago theater that I know knows about them and reads them somewhat regularly. It is our collective water cooler, nothing more.
That's why I call for a different tone - I talk about the conversation with them. I don't want to water down the content of the criticism, I just know that when it's encapsulated in aggression I will tune those ideas the fuck out. It reminds me too much of bonobos mounting each other to assert dominance and not valuable conversation. The constant bickering that goes on all day long not only drives up your hit count because it's ridiculous to watch, it makes you sound more obtuse than you are. Read that last sentence again, because it's not just whining - it's my criticism after reading you and your archives for six months. I've studied this bullshit, because I've felt a need to understand. And I say it fully expecting the conversation not to change. I say it because that simple change in tone is what I think would get 50 of those theater colleagues to start posting and weighing in. I think we want that, no? They stay away because they see the balance of power in the Chicago theatrosphere to be on the side of anger and resentment, not clear heads.
Equating cynicism with truth is therefore ALSO bullshit, and I've seen it water down Don's, dv's, and my own ideas - EXACTLY as much as nothing but praise will water down my ideas. Truth is impulse, a combination of excitement and disappointment. It's a question of how far are you really moved, and you guys just aren't really as moved to anger as your writing implies.
Constructive criticism is like therapy. If it's going to work, it has to be delivered in a form that the listener will fucking accept. That's why I'm adding profanity to this post for emphasis - it's not because I'm really angry, it's because on this blog, that's how you can be fucking heard and fucking understood. Taint. For crying out loud.
I walk into Clay Continent and I saw what you guys were working on as artists - the sonic atmosphere, the precise vocal and movement work. If I railed against you because the lighting and set design was poor in comparison - and yes, they were, it didn't come close to the sonic atmosphere you created in tone, absolutely mismatched - that'd be beside the point.
You didn't have the resources or directorial focus on the lighting. You were working on the sound. You had that ridiculous unpainted wooden contraption in lieu of barn doors on that light. That wasn't your focus - I get that. The things you actually care about are what I should be giving you honest feedback on. I can say, hey, did you think about this, and it can become clear in our conversation that no, you didn't. You probably didn't have access to conventional lights, so flaming you for putting that wooden thing in the air is a sidebar to the real issue. I'm not going to skewer you for that, unless I feel like retaliating for some reason.
RZ, I understand why you're hurt for your cast and director, but I think the takeaway lesson is: Be cautious with declaring blogging open season on your show. Those kinds of reviews WILL happen, you MUST expect and accept them, and arguing with those acting as critics just doesn't work. There was a way that you could take Don's review with the bag of salt that it deserves, and there was a way that you could fight him and not really help your show or your company in the process. I for one would have retaliated by blogging about the process and what you were actually doing, as we did at New Leaf when TW gave us what we felt was a misinformed and sloppy review. When patrons rail against "bad" performances at Steppenwolf, the bloggers there don't discount the opinion or moderate the comment, they publicly try to understand the perspective. You know Don. To expect something other than harshness than him isn't a good bet. Always remember that the real danger in theater is when people walk away utterly unmoved and apathetic - they don't like it, they don't violently hate it. They walk away with a resounding "eh." Then, you've succeeding in making theater that's a waste of everyone's time.
And thank you RZ for calling me out on my shit. I really did appreciate that perspective. Didn't think you were entirely correct, but I was moved by your point of view.
Don, I know you've been through the ringer in your career. I respect the shit you've had to eat over the years, and I respect that you keep doing it just the same. I respect that DEEPLY, and will continue to. I hope that I come out the other side of my career as able to continue to approach my work with anything but pure exhaustion. That's the praise.
The honesty? Your method of survival doesn't work for me, or people like me. Your cynicism, when you mean it, disappoints me. I think that's because I can't operate on a shoestring as an artist, because my work requires equipment. Plain and simple. I need the support of my artistic peers and mentors - or more often than not the ability to invest in my own equipment - to fucking get my work done, and that means I have to be honest without pissing everyone off. I'm a collaborative artist, and I think your methods will tend to poison the collaborative process outside of WNEP, where they've adapted and share your ability to thrive in acidity.
I need to be ph Balanced for a Fucking Woman.
Spoonful of Sugar = Medicine Go Down.
- Mary Fucking Poppins.
Scott,
"They will turn your comments box into a referendum on your personality. Don't let it happen "
Isnt this what some people sort of keep thinking Don, You, and I do to each other?
I dont know...
Anyways I'm trying to work it out up here (points to his our head)
-dv
Some don't care much for the ranting style, the manifesto style, or (in my case) the raging asshole style, but I dig it.
OK.
Why?
Nick -
That was amazing. Thank you.
Rebecca
@Nick Keenan-
Holy Cow! Did you really say something about your pH balance...
I dont know how much or that was at Don at me...
I didnt like "the door" either.
I wont encourage your use of expletives because I dont think that is where you want to go.
But, I will say I'm getting a clearer picture of your POV...and I'm not in total disagreement.
thx
-dv
Also, at Nick, whose entire post should probably be bronzed:
Equating cynicism with truth is therefore ALSO bullshit, and I've seen it water down Don's, dv's, and my own ideas - EXACTLY as much as nothing but praise will water down my ideas.
Give the man a goddamn kewpie doll.
dv -
It's all an act. Don knows I'm really a cute little possum. And Don knows that I'll be there to knock on the mayor's door when he needs me, because that's good for all of us.
I'd just rather play dead than fight.
Hunh... people don't like participating in conflict, but enjoy witnessing it. The few fucked souls (and my web profanity is often true to, and usually toned down from, my real self) who do enjoy participating can't do it too loud because it is intimidating and, as this is the internet, there's no way to "take it outside", per se. The rowdies want the lurkers to feel comfortable, the lurkers want the rowdies to chill the fuck out a bit, Mac hates Scott, Scott hates Mac, and the rest of New York has pretty much learned the easiest way out of this shitstorm is to ignore it.
I really don't mean to diminish what anyone has brought to the table with that, but I am struck with the same loss of interest that hit when everyone decided to define the value of theatre. It's not only a fruitless task, but it seems to be a silly one as well. Bring order and calm to the chaos and fury of internet communication? Hell, you may as well try to bring order and calm to the chaos and fury of face to face communication. You may not get as much anger in person, but you get a lot more lies.
My own personal solution to this is the same it was for how to maintain value in theatre, and it's the same for most things. I do what I do. Because Don's doing what Don does. And Scott's doing what Scott does. And both Nicks are doing what both Nicks do (individually, of course). So if I don't do what I do and say what I say and say it how I say it, who else will? Intimidation is for people who want to be somebody else. If people don't want to join in the frays here, there are plenty of other blogs to utilize. Or to start.
Of course, as I write this I stop to ask myself why anyone else cares. Fuck if I know. I'm just doing what I do.
Mr. Rekk,
I'll politely and civilly disagree. If we arent achieving consensus here...I am learned alot about other perspectives...will it change mine...I dont know...but I am getting alot of value out of our exchanges in the past week or so.
Not validation, but alot of value.
We are all talking more, new voices are joining in, even despite their concerns, I am almost energized...Nick K and others are helping me to learn how they hear what is being said...and even if I dont change my voice to their tastes, i appreciate their honesty.
So, "this is how we do" today...
different 'we' from the other day and that is interesting to me...
-dv
please forgive typing grammatical errors
-dv (again)
I agree with devilvet. If we all are just "doing what we do" then what's the point in discourse? I think that we are airing some dirt laundry here and creating, for lack of a better word, a sort of etiquette where we can truly offer constructive criticism and also constructive praise.
Too many "do"s
This how we do
vs.
I'm just doing what I do
...
p.s. what is your definition of "is" madame president?
-dv
"So, "this is how we do" today...
different 'we' from the other day and that is interesting to me..."
Oh, absolutely. Sorry if I wasn't clear about that -- what I do (and do as part of any 'we') is completely given to constant flucuations. But that's my problem -- talking about it as I'm doing it seems pointless, because what I would have done in the same situation tomorrow probably would've been slightly different anyway. It's all this meta-blogging that confounds me. And it is also worth noting that this has very little bearing on the rest of the discussion, honestly. I'm just yawning a bit and trying to explain (as much to myself as anyone else) why.
And honestly, Don's not going to stop saying fuck because of this conversation. Or am I wrong, Don?
That's my other problem. (This is jumping from Betsy's comment but speaks to the larger point, I think.) While we constructively criticizing -- I don't see this conversation going anywhere. We aren't going to define constructive criticism here, because (as is obvious in the RZ/DH mixup) everyone finds different things to be constructive.
The true definition of constructive criticism in this happy friendly "let's set the ground rules" bullshit is as follows: the exact amount of negativity that a person can stand without feeling bad about themselves as opposed to their work tempered with enough warm fuzzies to make sure they feel they've accomplished something. Constructive criticism, my ass. The only true constructive criticism is an honest opinion. And if my show is so bad that Don feels the need to describe it in language so blue it would rape my mother, than that's every bit as important a part of Don's honest opinion. If people only want to hear the good stuff, or a few suggestions here and there, so be it. Not me. That's the ground rules we should set up: not how we should respond, but a simple database of exactly how honest everyone would like us to be about their own work. Cause I don't want the sort of castrated criticism that these talks are working towards.
Hoo boy, went off on a rail there, didn't I? Look everybody, I discovered what I was actually thinking deep down in that Rekk heart! I feel refreshed.
@PRekk,
Well, I dont think the result will be castrated criticism per se. When all is said and done, we all go home at the end of the day and decide what value we put in whose words...and since we are in end all talking to each other as opposed to talking into the mirror like Travis Bickle...I cant back your yawn.
But, I'm not saying you arent allow to be vocal. I'm just saying that there is a lot of value. I dont want people to stop thinking and debating about this becuase one of the regulars came in somewhere after comment 30 and attempted to do wrap up and declaration of ambilvence.
-dv
Awww, pish posh, DV.
Regulars? I rarely have a dog in any fight. I just like to hear myself talk. And I would've personally wrapped this up in ambivalence before it started, had I the chance. Comment 30 is simply when I arrived.
Think and debate all you want. My thinking that this discussion isn't going anwhere but plain jane and fast is simply another side to the story. I don't expect anyone to heed me anymore than I'm heeding them.
A few responses:
Paul R. - Like I said above, nobody can stop you from doing what you do. It's just a cost-benefit analysis: what do you gain from making use of an open license for belligerence, and what do you lose? Then you just decide for yourself.
Nick K. - It was very interesting to read your comment, and to realize how little I know about this circle of Chicago artists, what a perspective of ignorance I'm coming from. I think your thoughts on constructive criticism are dead on. Some people regard it as namby-pamby eggshell-walking, but I think it has the advantage of working more often than the other.
DV - I see what you're saying, and I'm mindful of the slippery slope problem in criticizing someone's tone. In my personal case, I hope my record is clear when considered in the case of Scott Walters. I at one point got quite angry at him over comments he made that were, to my mind, outside the scope of and in fact detrimental to his overall mission. At the same time, I have praised his overall mission, and have never criticized any details of it as it has unfolded (particularly as I've regarded it as a work in progress, and therefore delicate). I also don't "hate" Scott by any means. From what I can tell - and my perspective is limited to the Scott of the internet - he's a man with no half-measures: great virtues and great flaws, nothing mild in between.
That said, slippery slopes tend to creep up on people, so it's worth watching out for. But bear in mind, the whole reason I wrote that comment that Don excerpted above was not to try to bully him into changing something about himself, but merely to answer Scott's question: "Where's the outrage?"
I suppressed my objection (as well as my objection to that "Slut/Rapist" poster from a few days ago) out of fear of the fray. Perhaps there are others like me. You can criticize us for our timidity, or you can make a space for us by adjusting certain aspects of your conduct. There's advantages and disadvantages to going either way. My belief is that the latter choice offers richer and more lasting advantages, so that's the one I recommend.
DV again - I haven't answered your rehearsal question, but somehow I have time for all this? Sorry! I'll get on it.
@mac
I cant speak for anyone else. But, i will speak since I am certain to some listening in that I am part of this tone problem.
I have no problem accepting the idea of using a different voice to converse with some folks on the internet.
I put in that post to you and echo here, I will gladly approach others without the rancor I use with Scott or Don.
Sometimes this internet thing is a place where I talk or holler at buds the way I would at the bar. But, i dont have to do that with everybody. I just have to find a way to convince people of my sincerity regardin that.
The only thing that makes what I'm posting here back to you relevent to Don's inquiry today is that whereas I like butting heads sometimes...I dont think it has to be
"All or Nothing" - to quote Ibsen's Brand.
So-called "honesty" isn't really helpful if its couched in inflammatory language.
"I think that's crap" might be honest. But it's also gonna fall on defensive ears (best case scenario) and eventually deaf ears.
Put more honestly, what passes for unvarished truth as sometimes defined in a lot of the discourse on the Web is really just insult-throwing dick-measuring.
Lastly, I disagree with Alison's statement. It's all personal. Criticism, art, anything "made" by subjectivity is always personal.
Which is to say, no-one can say with any actual objectivity that this is well-made and that isn't well-made. That's an opinion based on a logic defined by time, place and background - among other things.
To suggest otherwise is philosophically dishonest. At best.
"Which is to say, no-one can say with any actual objectivity that this is well-made and that isn't well-made. That's an opinion based on a logic defined by time, place and background - among other things."
Which, (and I wholeheartedly agree, Malachy) at once invalidates and validates all opinions, from those couched in profanity to those barely present. And that, in turn, allows a recipient who acknowledges this fact the ability to pick and choose as they will from what they feel is helpful (read: constructive) and what is not. Which, in another turn, is another opinion that cannot be made with any actual objectivity.
The solution is either to preface everything with a "this is only my opinion" disclaimer, or to assume the fact is understood. Who does the onus fall upon to ensure that opinion isn't interpreted as fact on, to avoid third parties, my blog? I in no way claim to be a journalist, a critic, or even a reviewer. I am a guy with an opinion. Yes, word of mouth via the internet is a different beast than word of mouth via the mouth, but it's still only word of mouth. I don't say things on my blog I wouldn't feel comfortable saying in earshot of the general public.
And, just to toot my own horn and prevent any snap judgements, I guess: anyone who has spent the briefest amount of time on my blog knows that, despite my protestations here, I'm not an irrational, hate-fueled maniac. Opinionated and a little obtuse, but easy enough to get along with. But I do believe that honesty has every bit as much to do with the tone you take as well as the words you use.
hey guys - how's it going?
-goose
Which, (and I wholeheartedly agree, Malachy) at once invalidates and validates all opinions, from those couched in profanity to those barely present. And that, in turn, allows a recipient who acknowledges this fact the ability to pick and choose as they will from what they feel is helpful (read: constructive) and what is not. Which, in another turn, is another opinion that cannot be made with any actual objectivity.
Which begs the question: Why give the feedback in the first place? To have your opinion heard, natch. And you probably won't be heard if you're acting like an asshole.
So why play the fool willingly? Why reduce your feedback to a rant session that'll be ignored on impact?
I know there's a reason for this behavior, and I know I do the same thing from time to time, but damn if I can figure out why.
Fuck tone! Fuck civility! This may be only my opinion, but I don't think it's about that at all.
If someone wants to take a hard language approach that’s fine, but they might have to understand when others stop listening to them. Their choice. I do think there are some terrific alternatives in the comments here, esp' Mac, Lisa F, Nick K(for dv), and Malachy.
I'm clearly late to this party, but I did want to add that I thought Don's initial post was almost terrific. Almost in that I agree with Mac that it confuses a couple of things. The key part for me was...
"Oh - and btw - there is a difference between "You're ugly" and "Your show stunk up the place." The first is personal; the second is about my work."
...but to imply that this is a tone/civility issue throws me off course.
If a junkyard dog is chewing on the work, almost anything can be said, almost anyway that dog sees fit. But if you imply that I'm an asshole for living where I do and that's why theater sucks - then I'm not happy. Tackle the situation with every 4-letter word ya got, but do ya really have to finger the artists?
Look, I may not agree with someone printing a review of a show when they walked out a intermission, but to continue to bring up someone by name over and over, implying that they've ruined the theater as we know it, is just not honest - no matter the tone or civility.
I've enjoyed virtually meeting so many artists in this theatrosphere, and I haven't come across one yet who was really trying to kill the theater, so my opinion is that it's not necessary to drag them down. I bet there is a way to challenge theater work and ideas in any tone ya want and still keep one’s bite out of another’s flesh.
-my $.02
Wow, a morning of change management meetings and way late to the party it seems.
I wonder if some of the breakdown is that some have an easier time disconnecting work and ideas from themselves?
So saying a set is flawed, or sucks for one is a comment on the set, for another person it's interpreted as a comment on themselves.
Another thing is it seems foolhardy to suggest feedback only is acceptable if it's solicited.
We can't control the conversation. And it's not like people never talked about work before. The only difference is now we can hear it.
For Don and those wanting to give critiques of their peers work ...
http://www.zanzjan.net/writing/give-critique.html
I like the end of the suggestions very much.
For Me and Those Being Critiqued:
http://www.zanzjan.net/writing/take-critique.html
This is for writing, specifically, but I think you can transfer the mediums quite well.
RZ
Tell people what you think in the most direct way possible.
That's all I'm doing.
Lastly, I disagree with Alison's statement. It's all personal. Criticism, art, anything "made" by subjectivity is always personal.
Which is to say, no-one can say with any actual objectivity that this is well-made and that isn't well-made. That's an opinion based on a logic defined by time, place and background - among other things.
To suggest otherwise is philosophically dishonest. At best.
Hiya Malachy
I think you misunderstand me profoundly. I've spent two decades now writing as an artist, and a few years writing passionately about theatre. Both come from a deeply personal set of beliefs and desires that has shaped my life.
That's the baseline. But I'm not writing letters to a lover (most of the time); I'm writing stuff I put out in public. My responsibility, whether I'm writing a poem or a novel or a piece of criticism, is to write it as well and as intelligently and passionately as I can. That requires all sorts of crafts and skills and art. My responsibility is to the object I am making that is not me, no matter how it comes out of all my deeply felt personal beliefs and experiences. The only criticisms that have ever pissed me off are those that move off the work and get personal - ad hominem, if you like: I think that is none of anybody else's business. The work is the business, and people can say what they like about that, good or bad: I prefer it if they like it, and sometimes I wish it were better, and sometimes people say things that are plain stupid, and sometimes - much less often - things that are useful.
I think art is about more than self-expression. I also know if I've done the work, and what I've done when I've done it. If I feel solid about that, and I work hard to try and make sure that I am, then what others say is just going to be part of a dialogue, "the second life of art", as Montale calls it. In a funny way, it's got nothing to do with me as an artist, I've usually moved on to something else long before that work hits the public. The work is not me, and I am not the work. I make the work. I make it with skills and tecniques I've learned painfully and slowly over many years (it's not just subjective Malachy: taste is certainly subjective, but there are crafts in art as precise as those in making a chair, you can tell whether something is made with intelligence or not, whether a line of poetry stands up or falls down, and there are sound technical reasons for it if you know what they are).
So I kind of think all this offence-taking is a bit bizarre. No, it's not personal. It's art. It's something you make. Don is definitely abrasive, and maybe he'd piss me off if he were writing about my work. And I might say so. But he strikes me also as someone who is trying to speak honestly at the same time, and certainly in the review that he posted of The Skriker, he was speaking honestly and intelligently. It's that combination that people are responding badly to, rather than the "tone". And I think that you ought to be able to talk honestly and intelligently about art, with or without profanities, or what are you doing? In the end, is art about a larger self, or a little, brittle ego?
So Allison help me out here seriously sincerely ...my question..
You are defended Don's position here, am I right? But elsewhere lately you comment about talking about theatre without it getting aggressive or being a flame war.
On both blogs you self validate your opinion by referencing the years you've been a participant on the Internet (which strikes me as weird...hope that isnt too ...you know...since well most of us have been on the internet since the 90's)
Pls...Help to see how the review were speaking of is different from the flame wars at Scott's blog...
Does it have something to do with the nature of a "review" versus ...abusive chat roomish commentary?
When RZ responded back...did if being to approach a flame war? Don and Rebecca took each other off each others blog rolls for a few days and there has been back and forth about Don's true intentions at Praxis and other online places...
So, I am having trouble sort of figuring out the heirarchy here...
In one instance I see a review and reposnse to the review where the two folks didnt have any sort of agreement as to whether or not a reiew was going to occur...but It is somehow better than a "perceived" flame war...where all the "junkyard dogs" as don put it have an agreement and have even published it notes on said agreement...
I'm asking this becuase I am concerned about the perceptions of others, but also dedicated to a notion that I am speaking with an authentic sincere voice that can occasionally be abrrasive.
I'm not telling Don what to do or say, but I am not convinced that the word choice he made was not very personal at the end of his review.
So when does a bad review and/or response become or approximate a flame war IYO?
-dv
(I know I am sort of mixing up different comments from different blogs...so if my train of thought isnt evident to all reading...apologies...also Allison if i am making assumptions about your POV based on connections that dont exist IYO... again sorry...I am just trying to understand others view of well the state of things the past few weeks)
Im sure I have missed a ton of typos
above
I defended Don's right to write that review. Quite specifically. I'm not defending his "position", whatever that is. I read the review and thought it engaged - actually, despite the language, quite respectfully - with the work. He made specific observations and backed them up. He talked about the work. Now, I think you can disagree with him, but taking exception is another matter, and saying he has no right to make those observations patently absurd.
Flame wars are characterised by personal attacks. People taking personal offence and having personal feuds and taking "sides". That's the kind of stuff that doesn't interest me. At all. My only point about having been on the internet for 10 years is that I've seen a lot of this kind of stuff. It's almost always driven by men, which may or may not be relevant, and frankly I don't see the point.
Don said:
Nick over at Rat's Ass seems to have a need for an artist/critic contract so that we can all be honest but not destructive (I think I interpreted that correctly, but I could have blown it in the recap).
Don, our conversation had too many loops to recap, but I am cut/pasting this thought as my capsule statement on where I hope the theatrospere will head in reviewing one another’s work..
“If an artist has a practice, he has an aesthetic stake to defend or explain or propagandize. His criticism of others’ work will necessarily have both the bias and the integrity of this practice as its foundation. The artist/critic is able to speak from this specific base of aesthetic knowledge – to define and delineate borders between his practice and others’. This kind of criticism creates a venue and an ethic for an exchange of ideas outside the market, a discourse about the art form itself.”
Nick Keenan said:
That simple change in tone is what I think would get 50 of those theater colleagues to start posting and weighing in.
A simple change of tone might also be good advice for someone campaigning for president of the Drama Club. But more participants do not equal improvement to the quality of discourse; most often I have experienced the opposite.
Civil chit-chat is not a worthy aspiration for the theatrosphere.
Some stages should exist where there is more a stake than just a pleasant little exchange of opinions. Bloggers at some venues and discussions should be more afraid to post and comment. The cost to participate in some arenas needs to be more than just “throwing in your 2 cents.”
As a theatre artist I am seeking venues and discussions where I can walk the line with what I write same as I attempt to do with all my theatre work. This is not an easy thing to do, nor should it be. We should seek to invent new ways to speak and work with peers, not apply an unsuitable or obsolete book of rules. We should bring the same creativity to our debates that we bring to our art.
Alison...
Thanks for the thoughtful response, but I definitely feel differently than you do about it.
When I make something, sure, it's not me. But it's still a product of my personality - and thus is personal. Without me, it simply could and would not exist.
And so when someone comments on something I made, it always has a personal side to me - no matter how much I try not to let it.
That's not to say I "own" it after I make it. It is still an object which can be sold or given away and then manipulated by others in ways that I may not like. But when someone looks at it - as I made it - they will always be looking at some part of me, a ghost of me, whether they know it or not. If I'm lucky, they will also be looking at some part of themselves so that it becomes personal to them. And when I'm really lucky, those things are the same... but that is another idea.
And, certainly, people can manipulate something I made to a point where I no longer feel it's mine (which is where theatre is interesting because there are so many hands and minds mixed into it) - but again, it starts with me as an expression only I could make, and so, outside of changes which would destroy it completely... well, you get the idea.
When it comes to art, I also feel differently about subjectivity. But, I also see what you mean about being able to see that something is well-made. Yes, when you look at a chair and sit in it, and it doesn't collapse, you can objectively say that it's well-made.
However, that doesn't make it comfortable. Or aesthetically pleasing. Or art.
And while we can look to our cultural background to help us decide whether the chair is any of those things (it's supposed to be comfortable, pleasing, etc), we can also look at it and decide for ourselves, relying on our own instincts and choosing for ourselves the criteria of evaluation.
Anyway, that's my take on it. Brittle ego and all.
Fair enough, Malachy. I'm actually not sure we're disagreeing that much. Of course work is personal, but we're talking about a number of things here that are maybe getting a bit mixed up.
As a critic, I make no bones that I'm responding from my own aesthetic - what else do I have to respond with? Ethically speaking, I have no responsibility towards the feelings of the artists involved at all, I don't even have to be fair (although I think it is better to be fair). I guess I direct my feelings of responsibility towards the artform rather than the individual artist, and I feel that the artist ought to too - that he or she should feel that there are more important things than whether his or her feelings get hurt. I suppose this attitude stems from working with stern and generous editors in my youth, who taught me a great deal about the craft of writing, and whose criticisms always stemmed from a desire to make the work better. Who's so good that they never need to improve or question their practice?
Also, I don't at all expect whatever I write to be the last word, a final judgment. I don't have the conceit that I am right. I prefer my responses ideally to be the beginning of other - preferably civil and stimulating - conversations. And my desire is that civility needn't mean something bland, but more an idea of a sort of wakeful, engaged and aware polity, which I take to be a Good Thing, an enjoyable thing. And that's the beginning and end of it, really!
Alison said:
Also, I don't at all expect whatever I write to be the last word, a final judgment.
The “objective” review is merely a genre of writing, neither more truthful nor more honest than the subjective review. As counter to it, the contra-review has grown almost into a genre of writing itself now. Reviewers are often prejudiced and wrongheaded in their opinions. The development of this corrective genre has been radically influencing the dynamic of reviewing. It is interesting to watch and participate in this new authority (authorship) in evolution. The discussion here is part and parcel of this expansion.
Alison....
I don't think we're that far apart either. I just think it's all personal for the de facto reason you point out.
And I think you're right that critics don't owe their subjects anything. But it sounds like we're drawn to similar form or criticism - criticism that's sensitive toward the artist where called for. Criticism that isn't snarky for its own snarkyness.
Post a Comment